Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 34 references

Phase-separated symmetry-breaking vortex-lattice in a binary Bose-Einstein condensate

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that rapidly rotating binary Bose-Einstein condensates with equal intra-species repulsion and strong inter-species repulsion settle into two completely separated, mirror-image semicircular vortex lattices, spontaneously…

desk verdict Useful new geometry for phase-separated vortex lattices, but the ground-state claim outruns the evidence. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.07848 v1 pith:KE5IKWHW submitted 2019-08-19 cond-mat.quant-gas nlin.PS

S. K. Adhikari This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.quant-gasnlin.PS
keywords binaryBose-EinsteincondensatevortexlatticeGross-Pitaevskiiequationspontaneoussymmetrybreakingphaseseparationrapidrotationquasi-two-dimensional
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper aims to show that a rapidly rotating two-component Bose-Einstein condensate, with equal (or nearly equal) intra-species repulsion and strong inter-species repulsion, spontaneously breaks the circular symmetry of its trap and settles into two completely separated vortex lattices. For exactly equal self-interaction strengths, the two lattices occupy identical semicircular regions that are parity conjugates of each other; for nearly equal strengths, the regions are still fully separated but have different shapes. The claim matters because non-overlapping vortex lattices in different spatial regions are far easier to observe experimentally than overlapping ones, and would allow direct study of how atomic interactions shape vortex-lattice order. The evidence is numerical solution of the mean-field Gross-Pitaevskii equation for a quasi-two-dimensional rotating binary condensate.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the coupled quasi-two-dimensional Gross-Pitaevskii system in the rotating frame, Eqs. (6)-(7), derived from the 3D rotating-frame equations by integrating out the tightly confined z-direction, together with its energy functional (9). The vortex lattices are stationary states of this functional, found by imaginary-time propagation with a random-phase-modulated initial state using a split-step Crank-Nicolson scheme. Two inequalities organize the physics: the uniform-mixture phase-separation condition $g_1g_2/g_{12}^2<1$ (Eq. 1), and the numerically refined critical value $g_{12}^c\approx \sqrt{g_1 g_2}$ that separates fully separated vortex-lattice states from stripe/sheet structures. The parity-conjugate semicircular geometry for $g_1=g_2$ is the signature that spontaneous symmetry breaking has occurred.

What would settle it

Compute the rotating-frame energy (9) of the semicircular phase-separated state and of a rotationally symmetric annular phase-separated state (or an overlapping vortex lattice) at the same parameters, e.g., $g_1=g_2=1000$, $g_{12}=2000$, $\Omega=0.6$; the central claim fails if the symmetric or overlapping configuration has lower energy. Experimentally, image both components after a rapid rotation ramp: for $g_1=g_2$ the two density profiles should be exact mirror images with no overlap, and any significant deviation would falsify the predicted parity-conjugate ground state.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that complete spatial separation of the two condensate components survives rapid rotation and organizes each component's vortices into its own lattice, with zero overlap between the vortex patterns. When $g_1=g_2$ and $g_{12}$ is sufficiently large, the ground state consists of two semicircular condensates, one the parity conjugate of the other, each carrying a triangular vortex lattice; when $g_1$ and $g_2$ are close but unequal, phase separation is still complete but the two lattices have different shapes and vortex counts. The paper further identifies a numerical critical inter-species strength $g_{12}^c$, independent of angular frequency $\Omega$ and close to $\sqrt{g_1 g_2}$, above which fully separated vortex lattices form; below it, stripe or sheet structures appear instead. The symmetric separated state is found to be dynamically stable under real-time evolution after a small change in $\Omega$, while the asymmetric state is only weakly stable.

Load-bearing premise

The picture rests on the assumption that the imaginary-time simulation, started from a random-phase wavefunction, converges to the true global ground state of the rotating-frame energy, so the mirrored semicircular states are genuine ground states rather than metastable local minima; the paper does not compare their energy against rotationally symmetric or overlapping configurations.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For $g_1=g_2$ and $g_{12}$ above the numerical critical value, the two vortex lattices occupy disjoint semicircular domains that are parity conjugates, so vortices of one component never overlap the other component's density.
  • When $g_1$ and $g_2$ are close but unequal, phase separation remains complete but the two lattices have different shapes and, at higher rotation, different vortex counts (e.g., 21 = 11 + 10 at $\Omega=0.7$ for $g_1=1000$, $g_2=900$).
  • The numerical critical inter-species strength for fully phase-separated vortex lattices is independent of rotation frequency $\Omega$ and is well approximated by $\sqrt{g_1g_2}$, refining the uniform-mixture criterion $g_1g_2/g_{12}^2<1$.
  • The symmetric phase-separated vortex lattice survives real-time evolution for 200 time units under a small change in $\Omega$ (0.88 to 0.89), indicating dynamical stability; the asymmetric lattice is only weakly stable.
  • Below the critical $g_{12}$, rotating binary condensates form stripe or sheet structures rather than separated vortex lattices, so the fully separated regime is a distinct phase accessible by tuning scattering lengths via Feshbach resonance.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The mirror-image geometry suggests a concrete mechanism: with equal self-repulsion, swapping the two components is an exact symmetry of the energy, so a straight interface through the trap center costs the same energy for either assignment; the simulations realize this as two parity-conjugate semicircles.
  • The claimed $\Omega$-independence of $g_{12}^c$ is a testable prediction: measuring the onset of complete phase separation in a rotating binary condensate across a range of rotation frequencies should produce a flat critical curve, while a strong $\Omega$-dependence would mean rotation renormalizes the effective inter-species coupling beyond the mean-field picture.
  • The parity-conjugate relationship offers a built-in experimental calibration: at $g_1=g_2$, any imaging asymmetry between the two components can be separated from real physics because the ground state itself should be exactly mirror-symmetric.
  • The same non-overlap property should allow direct experimental counting of vortices in each component, turning vortex-lattice geometry into a sensitive probe of the ratio $g_{12}^2/(g_1 g_2)$.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies a rapidly rotating, harmonically trapped quasi-2D binary Bose-Einstein condensate with repulsive intra- and inter-species interactions, described by the coupled Gross-Pitaevskii equations (6) and (7). Using imaginary-time propagation from a localized random-phase initial state, the author reports that for sufficiently strong inter-species repulsion the two condensates phase-separate into non-overlapping regions, each carrying a vortex lattice. For equal intra-species interactions (g1 = g2 = 1000, g12 = 2000) the two domains are parity-conjugate semicircles with triangular vortex lattices; for nearly equal interactions (g1 = 1000, g2 = 900, g12 = 2000) the separation is complete but the shapes differ. The paper also computes a numerical critical inter-species coupling, compares it with the uniform-mixture threshold sqrt(g1 g2), and demonstrates dynamical stability of the symmetric case by real-time evolution.

Significance. If the ground-state claim is substantiated, the finding is significant: completely non-overlapping vortex lattices would directly address the experimental difficulty of observing vortices in overlapping binary condensates, and the predicted parity-conjugate semicircular shapes provide a clear signature of spontaneous rotational symmetry breaking. The paper has concrete strengths: the numerical method is explicitly specified, the vortex identification is checked through phase winding (Fig. 7), the symmetrical case is tested by long real-time propagation (Fig. 9), and the analytical threshold sqrt(g1 g2) is used as a benchmark rather than fitted. The central weakness is that the global-minimum status of the reported states is asserted rather than demonstrated, which matters because the abstract frames the result as spontaneous symmetry breaking of the ground state.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. III, paragraph before Fig. 5] The statement 'The fully phase-separated states are the ground states for all Ω' is not supported by any energy comparison. The manuscript nowhere compares the energy of the semicircular phase-separated state with (i) a rotationally symmetric core-shell configuration, (ii) an overlapping binary vortex lattice, or (iii) the stripe/sheet states that the paper itself identifies as the ground state for g12 = 1100 (Fig. 2(g)-(h), and the sentence 'The fully phase-separated states in this case ... are excited states of higher energy'). Because the energy functional (9) is nonconvex, convergence of imaginary-time propagation from a single localized random-phase initial state is a local descent and does not by itself establish global minimality. This issue is load-bearing: the abstract's 'spontaneous symmetry breaking' and the ground-state phrasing depend on the semicircular states being true ground states, not merely stable excited states. Please provide energy differences, or at least total energies from Eq. (9), for the phase-separated state against these competitors at representative Ω and g12, and state explicitly for which parameter range the phase-separated state is the lowest-energy state.
  2. [Sec. III, Fig. 3] The 'numerically computed gc12' plotted in Fig. 3 is never operationally defined. The text states that for g12 larger than the numerical gc12 a phase-separated vortex lattice is obtained, but the reader is not told what observable distinguishes a phase-separated vortex lattice from a stripe/sheet state, what tolerance is used, or how the critical value is extracted from the numerical runs. In addition, the claim that 'The numerical critical value gc12 is found to be independent of Ω (< 1)' is asserted without showing results for more than one Ω; the figure itself displays only Ω = 0.6. These details matter because the paper's parameter-domain recommendation (Sec. IV, g1g2/g12^2 ⪅ 0.75) and the phase-separation criterion rest on this numerical curve. Please specify the extraction criterion, the convergence criterion, and provide the Ω-dependence data or qualify the claim.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 4 caption] The caption entries 'g12−1200' and 'g12−1400' should presumably read 'g12 = 1200' and 'g12 = 1400'; the printed minus sign is confusing.
  2. [Sec. I] The phrase 'arranged usually in a Abrikosov triangular lattice' should read 'arranged usually in an Abrikosov triangular lattice'.
  3. [Sec. IV] The statement that the asymmetric vortex lattice is 'only weakly stable' is not supported by any displayed data; either provide the corresponding real-time evolution or soften the claim.
  4. [Figs. 6 and 8] The overlaid contour plots of the two components would benefit from a legend, color definition, or explicit labeling of which grayscale/contour level corresponds to component 1 and component 2.
  5. [Eq. (1)] The displayed condition appears typeset as 'g1g2/g2 12 < 1'; the intended condition is g12^2 > g1 g2. Please ensure the equation is unambiguous in the final version.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the vortex-lattice shapes emerge from direct GP simulations, the analytical phase-separation threshold is an external benchmark, and the self-cited solver programs are method-level tools that do not encode the predicted result.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that rapidly rotating quasi-2D binary BECs with equal or nearly equal intra-species repulsion and strong inter-species repulsion form completely phase-separated, parity-conjugate semicircular vortex lattices that spontaneously break the rotational symmetry of the trap. This is a numerical result obtained by imaginary-time propagation of the coupled Gross-Pitaevskii equations (6)-(7), which minimize the rotating-frame energy functional (9). No parameter is fitted to force the semicircular shape: the reported shapes, vortex counts, and parity relation are outputs of the simulation, not inputs. The analytical threshold g_c^12 = sqrt(g1 g2) quoted from Eq. (1) is imported from external Ref. [26] and used only as a comparison benchmark for the numerically determined critical coupling; it does not generate the predicted vortex-lattice geometry. The self-citations to Refs. [27], [32], and [34] concern the numerical Crank-Nicolson/OMP solver programs; these are method-level tools and do not themselves assert or encode the semicircular phase-separated vortex-lattice result. The statement 'The fully phase-separated states are the ground states for all Omega' is under-supported because no direct energy comparison against rotationally symmetric, overlapping, or stripe/sheet competitor states is shown; however, that is a validation gap rather than a circular reduction. There is no equation in the paper that defines the predicted state in terms of the ground-state claim, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Hence, applying the hard rule that circularity must be exhibited as a specific reduction by construction, no circular step is found.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central result rests on standard mean-field BEC theory, a quasi-2D reduction, an approximate phase-separation criterion imported from homogeneous mixtures, and the numerical assumption that imaginary-time relaxation finds the ground state. There are no fitted constants and no invented entities; the hand-chosen interaction strengths and rotation frequencies are model inputs.

free parameters (3)
  • g1 and g2 (dimensionless intra-species interaction strengths) = g1 = 1000; g2 = 700, 900, or 1000
    Hand-chosen model inputs; the central semicircular pattern is demonstrated for these specific values, and no experimental scattering lengths are mapped.
  • g12 = g21 (dimensionless inter-species interaction strength) = 1100 or 2000
    Hand-chosen to be near or far above the approximate phase-separation threshold; the pattern is shown only at these values.
  • Omega (angular frequency of rotation in units of trap frequency) = 0.52 to 0.95
    Control parameter swept to vary vortex number; not fitted to any target, but the claimed behavior is demonstrated across this range.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Mean-field Gross-Pitaevskii description is valid for the ultra-dilute weakly interacting condensates considered.
    Used throughout Eqs. (2)-(7); standard for BEC but not justified for strong interactions or near unitarity.
  • domain assumption Quasi-2D reduction: the z-dependence factorizes as a Gaussian phi_i(r,t) = psi_i(rho,t) Phi(z) and can be integrated out.
    Invoked in Sec. 2 after Eq. (5), following Ref. [30]; valid for tight transverse confinement lambda >> 1, but no explicit lambda value or validation is given.
  • domain assumption The homogeneous-species phase-separation condition g1*g2 < g12^2 (Eq. 1) transfers approximately to the trapped quasi-2D rotating system.
    Used to choose parameter regimes and to compare with numerical g_c^12 in Fig. 3; the paper itself states it is 'not rigorously valid' in a trapped quasi-2D BEC.
  • domain assumption Imaginary-time propagation from a random-phase initial state converges to the ground state of the rotating-frame energy functional (9).
    The ground-state claim in Sec. 3 (before Fig. 5) rests on this; no comparison with other stationary states is reported.
  • domain assumption Equal atomic masses and equal particle numbers for the two species.
    Stated in Sec. 2: 'we will take the masses of two species to be equal' and N1 = N2; used to set g12 = g21. Not required for the qualitative claim but part of the model.
  • domain assumption The split time-step Crank-Nicolson discretization with space step 0.05 and time steps 0.0002/0.0001 resolves vortex cores and phase-separation interfaces.
    No convergence tests are reported; all figures depend on this resolution being adequate.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Phase-separated symmetry-breaking vortex-lattice in a binary Bose-Einstein condensate." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KE5IKWHW

@misc{pith2026190807848,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Phase-separated symmetry-breaking vortex-lattice in a binary Bose-Einstein condensate},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KE5IKWHW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.07848}
}
read the original abstract

We study spontaneous-symmetry-breaking circularly-asymmetric phase separation of vortex lattices in a rapidly rotating harmonically-trapped quasi-two-dimensional (quasi-2D) binary Bose-Einstein condensate (BEC) with repulsive inter- and intra-species interactions. The phase separated vortex lattices of the components appear in different regions of space with no overlap between the vortices of the two components, which will permit an efficient experimental observation of such vortices and accurate study of the effect of atomic interaction on such vortex lattice. Such phase separation takes place when the intra-species interaction energies of the two components are equal or nearly equal with relatively strong inter-species repulsion. When the intra-species energies are equal, the two phase-separated vortex lattices have identical semicircular shapes with one being the parity conjugate of the other. When the intra-species energies are nearly equal, the phase separation is also complete but the vortex lattices have different shapes. We demonstrate our claim with a numerical solution of the mean-field Gross-Pitaevskii equation for a rapidly rotating quasi-2D binary BEC.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.07848 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Phase-separated vortex lattices in a rapidly rotating binary [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The numerical g c 12 versus g2 for g1 = 1000 and its analyt￾ical estimate g c 12 = √ g1g2 from Eq. (1). The numerical estimate is found to be independent of the angular frequency of rotation Ω. great experimental interest. Hence cases (ii), (iii), and (iv) seem to be attractive candidates and we next study the generation of vortex lattices in the cases displayed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Contourplot of 2D density of a rapidly rotating binary BEC [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (a) Number of vortices and (b) energy in the rotating [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: First and second components of a rotating binary BEC with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Dynamical evolution of vortex lattice of a rotating binary [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    M. H. Anderson, J. R. Ensher, M. R. Matthews, C. E. Wieman, and E. A. Cornell, Science 269 (1995) 198

    work page 1995

  2. [2]

    K. B. Davis, M. -O. Mewes, M. R. Andrews, N. J. van Druten, D. S. Durfee, D. M. Kurn, and W. Ketterle, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75 (1995) 3969

    work page 1995

  3. [3]

    K. W. Madison, F. Chevy, W. Wohlleben, and J. Dalibard, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84 (2000) 806; M. R. Matthews, B. P. Anderson, P. C. Haljan, D. S. Hall, M. J. Holland, J. E. Williams, C. E. Wieman, and E. A. Cornell, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83 (1999) 3358

    work page 2000

  4. [4]

    J. R. Abo-Shaeer, C. Raman, J. M. V ogels, and W. Ketterle, Sci- ence 292 (2001) 476; P. C. Haljan, B. P. Anderson, I. Coddington, and E. A. Cornell, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86 (2001) 2922. 8

    work page 2001

  5. [5]

    E. B. Sonin, Dynamics of Quantised Vortices in Superfluids (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2016)

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    A. L. Fetter, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81 (2009) 647

    work page 2009

  7. [7]

    A. A. Abrikosov, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 32 (1957) 1442; [Eng. Transla. Sov. Phys.-JETP 5 (1957) 1174.]

    work page 1957

  8. [8]

    Schweikhard, I

    V . Schweikhard, I. Coddington, P. Engels, S. Tung, E. A. Cor- nell, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93 (2004) 210403

    work page 2004

Show all 34 references
  1. [9]

    D. S. Hall, M. R. Matthews, J. R. Ensher, C. E. Wieman, E. A. Cornell, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81 (1998) 1539

    1998

  2. [10]

    H. Wang, J. Sci. Comput. 38 (2009) 149; Y . Zhanga, W. Bao, H. Li, Physica D 234 (2007) 49; C.-H. Hsueh, T.-L. Horng, S.-C. Gou, W. C. Wu, Phys. Rev. A 84 (2011) 023610; Q. Zhao, Int. J. Mod. Phys. B 33 (2019) 1950080; X.-F. Zhang, L. Wen, C.-Q. Dai, R.-F. Dong, H.-F. Jiang, H...

    2009

  3. [11]

    Mason, A

    P. Mason, A. Aftalion, Phys. Rev. A 84 (2011) 033611; A. Aftalion, P. Mason, J. Wei, Phys. Rev. A 85 (2012) 033614

    2011

  4. [12]

    S. K. Adhikari, L. Salasnich, Scientific Rep. 8 (2018) 8825

    2018

  5. [13]

    S. K. Adhikari, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 31 (2019) 275401

    2019

  6. [14]

    R. K. Kumar, L. Tomio, B. A. Malomed, A. Gammal, Phys. Rev. A 96 (2017) 063624; R. K. Kumar, L. Tomio, A. Gammal, Phys. Rev. A 99 (2019) 043606; N. Ghazanfari, A. Keles ¸, M.¨O. Oktel, Phys. Rev. A 89 (2014) 025601

    2017

  7. [15]

    Kasamatsu, K

    K. Kasamatsu, K. Sakashita, Phys. Rev. A 97 (2018) 053622

    2018

  8. [16]

    A. E. Leanhardt, Y . Shin, D. Kielpinski, D. E. Pritchard, W. Ketterle, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90 (2003) 140403

    2003

  9. [17]

    Su, C.-H

    S.-W. Su, C.-H. Hsueh, I.-Kang Liu, T.-L. Horng, Y .-C. Tsai, S.-C. Gou, W. M. Liu, Phys. Rev. A 84 (2011) 023601

    2011

  10. [18]

    Cipriani, M

    M. Cipriani, M. Nitta, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111 (2013) 170401

    2013

  11. [19]

    S. K. Adhikari, Commun. Nonlinear Sci. Numer. Simulat. 71 (2019) 212

    2019

  12. [20]

    E. J. Mueller, T. -L. Ho, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88 (2002) 180403

    2002

  13. [21]

    Barnett, G

    R. Barnett, G. Refael, M. A Porter, H. P. Buchler, New J. Phys. 10 (2008) 043030; Z. Chen, Y . Li, N. P Proukakis, B. A Malomed, New J. Phys. 21 (2019) 073058

    2008

  14. [22]

    R. Wei, E. Mueller, Phys. Rev. A 84 (2011) 063611

    2011

  15. [23]

    Kuopanportti, J

    P. Kuopanportti, J. A. M. Huhtam ¨aki, M. M ¨ott¨onen, Phys. Rev. A 85 (2012) 043613

    2012

  16. [24]

    Kasamatsu, M

    K. Kasamatsu, M. Tsubota, Phys. Rev. A 79 (2009) 023606; K. Kasamatsu, M. Tsubota, M. Ueda, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91 (2003) 150406

    2009

  17. [25]

    Kasamatsu, M

    K. Kasamatsu, M. Tsubota, M. Ueda, Int. J. Mod. Phys. B 19 (2005) 1835

    2005

  18. [26]

    Mineev, Zh

    See, for example, V .P. Mineev, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 67 (1974) 263; [Eng. Transla. V .P. Mineev, Sov. Phys.-JETP 40 (1975) 132]; E. Timmermans, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81 (1998) 5718; K. L. Lee, N. B. Jorgensen, I-K. Liu, L. Wacker, J. J. Arlt, N. P. Proukakis, Phys. Rev. A 94 (2016) 013602

    1974

  19. [27]

    Muruganandam, S

    P. Muruganandam, S. K. Adhikari, Comput. Phys. Commun. 180 (2009) 1888; D. Vudragovi´c, I. Vidanovi´c, A. Balaˇz, P. Muruganandam, S. K. Adhikari, Comput. Phys. Commun. 183 (2012) 2021

    2009

  20. [28]

    L. D. Landau, E. M. Lifshitz, Mechanics (Pergamon Press, Ox- ford, 1960), section 39

    1960

  21. [29]

    A. L. Fetter, B. Jackson, S. Stringari, Phys. Rev. A 71 (2005) 013605

    2005

  22. [30]

    Salasnich, A

    L. Salasnich, A. Parola, L. Reatto, Phys. Rev. A 65 (2002) 043614

    2002

  23. [32]

    L. E. Young-S., P. Muruganandam, S. K. Adhikari, V . Lon ˇcar, D. Vudragovi´c, A. Balaˇz, Comput. Phys. Commun. 220 (2017) 503; L. E. Young-S., D. Vudragovi ´c, P. Muruganandam, S. K. Ad- hikari, A. Balaˇz, Comput. Phys. Commun. 204 (2016) 209; B. Satari´c, V . Slavnic, A. Bel...

    2017

  24. [33]

    Muruganandam, S

    P. Muruganandam, S. K. Adhikari, J. Phys. B 36 (2003) 2501

    2003

  25. [34]

    Kishor Kumar, V

    R. Kishor Kumar, V . Lonˇcar, P. Muruganandam, S. K. Adhikari, A. Balaˇz, Comput. Phys. Commun. 240 (2019) 74

    2019

  26. [35]

    Inouye, M

    S. Inouye, M. R. Andrews, J. Stenger, H.-J. Miesner, D. M. Stamper-Kurn, W. Ketterle, Nature 392 (1998) 151. 9

    1998

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.